<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[The dad…]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — 28 Weeks Later</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>Crafty78</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 23, 2017 06:14 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Is the dad supposed to be following his children throughtout the film because he seems to turn up (on his own) at the most random places? If not then I find it quite laughable that he just seems to be there. I mean what are the chances of that, really?<br />
I also really couldn't stand the way the film was shot, everything is filmed far too close up and the shaky cam really does begin to annoy you after a while. The original is far superior to this, and was done on half the budget.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/241395/the-dad</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 21:19:26 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/241395.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 17:13:36 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to The dad… on Mon, 04 May 2026 17:13:37 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Wildman's smol peeny</strong> — <em>3 years ago(January 25, 2023 12:37 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">The way the dad was as an infected spoiled the movie for me. This was the only thing I disliked. He either turned or was immune. None of this inbetween bs.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2022563</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2022563</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 17:13:37 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>